CNN Says It’s Sexist To Scrutinize Elizabeth Warren’s Lies

It’s the media’s job to investigate and report the truth about important people and events — at least, it used to be.

These days, it seems that following facts no matter where they lead has been replaced by progressive pandering. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion, especially after a jaw-dropping piece published by CNN on Wednesday.

The left-leaning news network has essentially declared that questioning an unlikely story told by a female presidential candidate is sexist. Forget fact-checking and holding powerful people accountable; if a politician is the correct gender, they apparently get special treatment.

“Warren pregnancy debate another example of sexism in the guise of scrutiny,” the bold headline on CNN read.

The accompanying article by the network’s national political writer Brandon Tensley goes on to shame competing news outlets for noticing that Elizabeth Warren seems to fib a lot.

“Earlier this week, Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential candidate, was asked about a story that she’s mentioned often on the campaign trail,” CNN reported.

“In 1971, when she was 22 years old and completing her first year of teaching, she lost her job once it became clear that she was visibly pregnant,” the outlet continued.

At least, that’s the version told by Warren. The story seemed to bolster the candidate’s “persistent woman in a world of mean men” shtick.

But when several media organizations checked, they found some pretty compelling evidence that the real timeline of events was significantly different. Actual county documents from the time — which can be viewed online — suggest that the school board eagerly renewed the young teacher’s employment contract.

Should Warren receive the same scrutiny as other candidates?

100% (1 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

It also appears that it was Warren who resigned from the teaching job of her own accord. In other words, it was the complete opposite of being fired for becoming pregnant, deflating the entire woe-is-me story.

In an appalling show of abandoning actual journalism in favor of protecting a liberal narrative, CNN decided to scold other outlets for reporting this discrepancy.

“But over the past few days, conservative news sites and mainstream outlets either have sought to directly refute Warren’s account or have disputed it in such a way that it seems as if there’s some reason to doubt that a school in the early 1970s would fire a pregnant woman,” Tensley wrote, linking to articles from the Washington Free Beacon and CBS News.

The reason this story is getting attention, in the eyes of CNN? Sexism!

Fact-checking Warren’s story of being fired “shines a light on the inveterate sexism — women as unreliable narrators, women as answerable for their husbands’ professional lives, women as weak,” the CNN contributor wrote.

It couldn’t possibly be that Warren is seen as an “unreliable narrator” because she keeps telling fibs. No, the only possible reason is that she is a woman, and can’t you just leave her alone?

This is a perfect example of an establishment media outlet running interference for their darling candidate, all while pretending to be unbiased and committed to facts. The message is clear: Warren is supposed to get a free pass on her exaggerations because she is a woman.

And that is the real irony to all of this. By breathlessly protecting Warren, liberal outlets like CNN are actually acting as if women are less capable and less equal than male presidential candidates.

If leftists truly believe that women should be treated the same as men, then they should have no problem running the same fact-checks. If Warren is truly prepared to run for president of the most powerful nation on earth, she ought to be able to weather basic scrutiny of her campaign stories.

That’s called journalism. Too bad it seems to be such a foreign concept at CNN these days.

The site is not responsible for the written comments!

If you like what we do, you can support us here:

Thank you and God to bless you!

We do not have the resources to verify the information that reaches the editorial board and do not guarantee its authenticity, which is why, at the end of each article, its source is indicated unless it is copyrighted. This article may not be true, and any resemblance to real people and events may be accidental.